Well, this is chilling. CNN is quite the hypocritical thug. It cyber tracked and identified the social media user who created the wrestling body slam meme, a Reddit user who goes by the charming name Han Asshole Solo. CNN issued this statement about the man’s apparently successful subsequent reeducation:

CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Let’s observe a couple basics. Han Asshole Solo made an amusing, sophomoric meme on a personal social media account. He is not a public figure. He didn’t ask the president of the United States to retweet his handiwork. Beyond CNN getting its knickers in a twist over the widespread laughter that ensued at its expense, there is nothing newsworthy about Mr. H.A.S.

But, critics must be stifled, examples must be made, and horse heads must be put in beds.

So, for the sin of of digital parody mocking a global media company by a private citizen, and at pain of being dangled like meat in front of howling, frothing, leftists who, when they aren’t pounding out vitriol on their devices are probably filing their teeth sharp (Don’t believe me? Spend some time reading lefty message boards on lefty websites) CNN has extracted a sincere apology with real remorse, and a promise that Mr. H.A.S. will not repeat his “ugly” “offending” behavior. Or else.

This sanctimony comes to you courtesy of the network that knowingly publicized the fabricated dossier about sexual shenanigans in a Moscow hotel, whose president demands of the staff more Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, for clicks and profit, whose autocorrect defaults “benign contacts” into “collusion” and who repeatedly embarrasses itself with fake Russia news. It comes from the network that lives and breathes and glories in anonymous leaks meant to harm and embarrass the president, from sources that may or may not know, but who are only too happy to shout into the global microphone, under the protective, collusive cover of CNN. Yes, that company has rooted out the ugly, offending behavior of an anonymous schmo and taken steps to get his mind right.

And they call Donald Trump a narcissist. Whatever vanity and thin skin Trump puts on ample display, he is free from a particular delusion that is tragically gripping Barack Obama, causing him to do and say strange and inappropriate things on the world stage: Donald Trump is the duly elected president of the United States and Obama can’t seem to accept that he no longer is.

From the earliest hours after Trump’s unexpected election, Obama has angled to vex and trip up his successor. He changed the rules on agency sharing of classified information, making it easier to distribute dirt and innuendo into the right hands for anonymous, felonious leaking to complicit reporters eager to do their part. It is likely ongoing investigations will unearth more machinations of the old administration, but one thing doesn’t need uncovering. It’s happening right in our faces.

To an unheard of degree, Obama is acting as an opposition president in exile. He is stalking Trump around the globe, meeting with foreign leaders in the same nation Trump is making official state visits, and generally acting like a Cinderella who doesn’t realize her clock struck midnight. His shtick includes aggressive, detailed critiques of moves by the administration and by the Republican Congress of the kind that have been considered unpresidential through all modern history.

It would be inaccurate to say Obama let the door hit him on the way out. He simply refuses to go out. Time Magazine and the capitol newspaper The Hill capture some of Obama’s gems in a speech to the Fourth Congress of the Indonesian Diaspora in Jakarta, where he ripped into the current administration, warning against “aggressive nationalism,” withdraw from the Paris accords, “strong men,” “hostility to those who look different,” and attacks on freedom of religion and freedom of the press.

“We start seeing a rise in sectarian politics,” Obama said. “We start seeing a rise in an aggressive kind of nationalism. We start seeing both in developed and developing countries an increased resentment about minority groups and the bad treatment of people who don’t look like us or practice the same faith as us.”

This swirl of smug leftism takes some unpacking. There is no evident outbreak of saber rattling by developed and developing nations. What appears to be happening is a growing rejection by voters around the world of elites’ globalist consensus and the accelerating transfer of sovereignty, government, and administration from nation states to regional and global bodies.

England’s vote for Brexit was not aggressive nationalism. It was a rejection, both weary and angry, of Eurocrats in Brussels presuming to the be the center of commercial, social, and cultural regulation for England and other EU nations.

Similarly, the US mood to reject Obama’s style of globalism and multi-lateralism is not “aggressive nationalism.” It is a reversion to the historical vision that America is a proud and free nation that governs itself in its own interest and according to the formula in its constitution. Americans have tired of Obama’s “lead from behind,” America last vision. Anyway, Obama was content to hang back only regarding matters not dear to his heart, like combating ISIS and Islamic extremism at home or in the Middle East.

When it came to things like binding America to being the global sugar daddy in the fight against fossil fuels, or binding the US to international obligations in a disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, Obama was only too eager to lead the parade. He fashioned anti-constitutional strategies to subordinate the US to UN resolutions and global accords without submitting them to the Senate for ratification.

America grew sick of global citizen Obama’s unilateral approach, to the extent it took a leap for a loudmouth like Trump who promised to put America first. Obama now gravely warns of the dangers of aggressively backtracking on his surrenders of sovereignty. Mr. President, you had your turn. Your vision lost last election. The American way is that the new president gets to introduce policies and govern. Voters will judge him based on results.

Obama’s reference to bad treatment of people who don’t look like us is just plain slimy. Obviously, Obama is referring to concern about Islamic terrorism and an uncontrolled influx of immigrants of unknown intent and disposition. Trump’s controversial Executive Order temporarily limiting immigration applies to just seven of over 62 Muslim and Arab nations. It is not a blanket policy against a religion. Moreover, the seven nations were identified not by the current administration, but by Obama’s administration as posing “a heightened risk” for security and terror threats. But, there’s Obama, keeping it classy, implying America is hostile to brown people.

Similarly, securing our national border is about maintaining national sovereignty and security. It does nothing to undermine the standing and rights of Americans of any color.

The ex-president also offered the following toast to his homeland: “If you are strong in your own faith then you should not be worried about someone else’s faith.” This is audacious. Trump’s policy on increased vetting of immigrants from seven essentially failed states has nothing to do with anyone’s faith. Too, there’s the hypocrisy that Obama’s administration was notoriously hostile to conservative Christians. It sued the Little Sisters of the Poor to make them provide abortifacients contrary to Catholic doctrine. It sued Hobby Lobby for similar reasons, denying that people’s free exercise of religion has any safe space in the work place. It sided against a Georgia private Christian school, trying to force it to retain a male teacher who married a man, contrary to church teaching. Apparently, Obama is not “strong in his own faith,” because he was certainly worried about the free exercise of conservative Christians.

As a final insult to reality and decency, Obama admonished: “What we will see is more and more people arguing against democracy, we will see more and more people who are looking to restrict freedom of the press, and we’ll see more intolerance, more tribal divisions, more ethnic divisions, and religious divisions and more violence,”

This is rich coming from the man who speaks for the movement fighting to reject the results of the last election. Who spied on reporters, prosecuted reporters, surveilled reporters. New York Times reporter James Risen calls Obama the most anti-press president since Nixon. Trump merely insults them. Obama actually sicced the government on them. As for tribalism, Obama was a provocateur who always seized on the opportunity to divide. He called his grandmother a “typical white person.” He insisted, without knowing the facts, that the Cambridge police had acted stupidly in arresting his friend Henry Louis Gates. He reminded the world that his son might have looked like Trayvon Martin. He dispatched Eric Holder to stir discord at the justified police shooting of Eric Brown, who was attacking an officer.He famously told labor leaders he wants to reward his friends and punish his enemies. He was America’s Divider in Chief.

Protected by the press for the last eight years, Obama sowed all the strife and division he now accuses Trump of encouraging. And he can’t tear himself away from the spotlight.

Amidst New York Times columnist Charles Blow’s psychoanalysis of Donald Trump (summary: Trump’s persona politica is all about Barack Obama and his blackness) Mr. Blow unleashes this paean to Obama:

Obama was a phenomenon. He was elegant and cerebral. He was devoid of personal scandal and drenched in personal erudition. He was a walking, talking rebuttal to white supremacy and the myths of black pathology and inferiority. He was the personification of the possible — a possible future in which legacy power and advantages are redistributed more broadly to all with the gift of talent and the discipline to excel.

It is not a stretch here to link people’s feelings about Obama to their feelings about his blackness. Trump himself has more than once linked the two.

Well, that is one description of the man and his presidency, though I can think of others. There is much to be angered and disheartened about that in 2017 it is virtually impossible to criticize Barack Obama’s explicitly transformative vision for the American constitutional system without being told it’s all because we want to erase the legacy of the Black Man. Uh, no. It’s because we want to undo the damage wrought by a president who has little regard and less use for such principles as limited government, separation of powers, a faithful executive, federalism, the primacy of private institutions, free enterprise, and free markets. Who put more faith and drive into redistribution and burdensome regulation than he ever did in economic growth, opportunity, free choice, and personal responsibility.

I don’t pretend to understand or appreciate all of Trump’s thinking about governing. It has been and will be a wild ride. But it is clear to any fair observer that he is more interested and engaged in where he thinks America should steer than he is in chasing the ghost of his predecessor. It is also clear that it is his predecessor who is displaying unprecedented ideas and creepy practices aimed at keeping his ghost around haunting the place. But, to criticize or resist him is to invite the tired slander of the scarlet “R”

The race scolds don’t smell their own irony when they accuse critics of racism even as they somehow find in almost every policy debate an essential clash over race. Any conservative who engages ideological liberals encounters this gaslit smack in the face on a regular basis. Charles Blow might be more modulated than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but be sleeps in the same philosophical bed.

On Monday, the Supreme Court handed President Trump a legal victory, reinstating the bulk of his Executive Order restricing travel from seven Middle Eastern countries, and exercising adult supervision over appellate judges from the 9th and 4th Circuit Federal Courts of Appeal who had made up bad law in order to thwart a president they oppose. An indicator of how shoddy the lower courts’ reasoning was is that the High Court’s ruling was unsigned, or per curium. This means the ruling was unanimous, without dissent.

The lower courts had divided entirely on partisan lines, with Republican appointed judges voting to uphold the president’s order and Democrat appointed judges voting to block it. A non-lawyer or a cynic might conclude that’s just politics at work, and there is no “right answer.” The Supreme Court on Monday put the lie to that assumption. The Democrat appointees in the lower courts were engaging in lawless obstruction.

They admitted the Order was facially neutral and valid, but determined that Trump’s bad intent poisoned it. The Chief Judge of the 4th Circuit showed his cards thusly, describing an “Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance.” In other words, candidate Trump’s statements about imposing a “Muslim ban” evinced discriminatory intent, and everything President Trump does should be judged through that filter.

This is audacious. Federal law grants the president plain authority to: “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” It was the Obama administration, not the Trump administration, that had already identified the seven targeted nations “as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States.” The Plaintiffs and the appellate courts conceded that the same order from a different president would not have been problematic. This is insane.

Trump’s Order deferred immigration from seven nations posing special security concerns, in order to review the adequacy of vetting procedures. Those nations were flagged by the previous administration. The order did not affect over 55 other Muslim and Arab nations. In context, candidate Trump’s words and President Trump’s actions demonstrate a concern for and opposition to an extremist strain of Islamism, not hostility to the entire Muslim religion.

The Order was entirely within Trump’s Constitutional and statutory authority. But the lower courts determined that, by virtue of campaign statements, Trump was ineligible to use his presidential authority. A devastating parsing of this reasoning comes from Princeton Professor Robert George: “What is the question? The lower courts treated the question as “What can Trump do or not do.” The Supreme Court treated the question as “What can presidents do or not do.”

The dissents in the 4th and 9th Circuits had already made mincemeat of the reasoning of the willful majorities. Briefly:

Presidents are accountable for the legal effect of their actions, not for judicial psychoanalysis of their motives.

Candidates are not sworn office holders. Many loose or tentative things are said on the campaign trail. Once a person is elected, takes the oath, receives the relevant briefings, and has benefit of structured counsel and advice, the situation is entirely different.

If candidates’ campaign statements are fair game, there is no reason to stop there. We can learn about a politician’s thinking from all previous statements, comments, interviews, writings, private emails, and maybe college papers. The majority’s logic would require a forensic psychoanalysis of an office holder’s entire adult life to judge the legitimacy of his actions.

This free form approach to judging is nothing more than a license for judges to find any reason to block the action of any president of whom they disapprove, which is what the majority did.

The Supreme Court yawned and slapped down the novel, lawless theory.

A final troubling point needs to be made. What the judges did, in their sphere of action, is really no different from what Occupy or Antifa protesters do in the streets, what insubordinate federal bureaucrats do in their cubicles, what lawless leaking intelligence officials do in hushed conversations in coffee shops or park benches. They allied with the resistance. The judges joined a vast nebulous cohort that believes its disgust for Donald Trump renders him illegitimate. They are entitled to take any step possible to neutralize him, and if possible, remove him.

The problem with this seditious, insurrectionist mentality is that the American people saw who and what they were electing. They went ahead and Constitutionally elected him. And their will, not the will of progressive insiders or violent street crusaders, is sovereign.

This week the Supreme Court took the nation a step back in the right direction.

Following the US Supreme Court’s reversal of lower Circuit courts’ stays against President Trump’s Order on immigration from certain countries, violent resistance has erupted. Judges from 9th Circuit and the 4th Circuit have heeded Rob Meathead Reiner’s call for “all out war.”

Other Circuit judges held vigils on the court steps, some kneeling in loud prayer, others screaming distraught obscenities at the court, and still others joining hands and singing the justice anthem “We Shall Overturn”

One masked invader waved a menacing gavel. She agreed to comment on condition of anonymity, because of the inadmissible nature of his her remarks. “This might be hearsay, and violate Rule 403, too, but I don’t give a damn. I’m gonna say what I think. I think this stinks. Every one of those racists lives with Supreme privilege. They have no idea what it’s like to kill yourself working 24/7 in the appellate courts, paying your nanny overtime. And, trying to decipher justice from the nonsense they hand down, don’t get me started!. And this, this, they might as well burn Korans and start committing Muslims to the internment camps with their bare hands. But they don’t have the guts. No. They’re fascist sissies! ‘Wah! John Roberts has issued his order. Now let President Trump enforce it.'”

Chaos continues at the Court. The Insurgent Tribe Cherokee Mormon Network will update this report as information becomes available.

We know the FBI was investigating two Trump campaign associates, Carter Paige and Michael Flynn, for unregistered lobbying activities related to Russia.

We know Trump was not under investigation for collusion with Russia. We know James Comey informed Trump on at least three occasions he was not a target of the investigation.

We know Trump asked Comey to make that information public, and for whatever reason, Comey refused to do so.

We know Comey briefed Congressional leaders including Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer and told them Trump was not under investigation.

We know the media was feverishly reporting Trump was under investigation, based on anonymous leaks from current and former intelligence officials.

We know that a day or two later Schumer demanded a slowdown in Senate business, including a halt on voting on Supreme Court nominees, until questions were resolved about the investigation of the president.

We know that when James Comey testified before the House, he refused to say whether Trump was under investigation. Rather, he said he was conducting a counter-intelligence operation into Russian meddling in the investigation. He coyly added that, as with all such investigations, the FBI would assess whether crimes had been committed. When asked point blank whether the FBI was investigating Trump, Comey said he was not comfortable answering that question.

We know these exchanges were taking place while the media continued to breathlessly quote anonymous sources claiming the president was under investigation.

We know these events infuriated Charles Grassley, who tweeted that Comey should be transparent and tell the public what he had told Congressional leadership about whether Trump was under investigation or not. Grassley also called out Schumer’s lies, and said Schumer was making allegations that “he knew weren’t true.”

We know when Comey testified before the Senate under oath, he finally admitted that he had assured Trump three times he was not a target. When asked why he had refused to inform the public of that, Comey gave the astonishing answer that he didn’t want to announce a position, because if the situation changed, and he decided to investigate Trump, he would have to correct the record and say he was investigating the president. Yes, the same James Comey who publicly indicted Hillary Clinton’s extreme carelessness, then gave her a free pass, then publicly announced he was reopening the investigation, then publicly cleared her again, that guy, could not be bothered to inform the exercised public that he was not investigating the president for all the things the media was reporting he was investigating the president for.

We know that Trump got sick of Comey’s two faced act and fired him.

We know the vast elite conspiracy shifted immediately to a new hysteria: Obstruction. We know the vast elite conspiracy is really a clown car caravan of reporters, pundits, academics, entertainers, and activists who believe their disgust for a vulgar president constitutes grounds for impeachment. We know they will not give up the effort to hound the president out of office until they have overturned a Constitutional election or until they have bled dry every last bit of their credibility and authority and there is no one left who hears them howling in the wilderness or cares.